If he took leave to go out and help Chief Layton and Mr. Murphy I don't know that he should not get the highest possible compensation. Lieutenant Jani, we have not heard from you.

Lt. JANI. We have been reading this bill and looking forward to it. I think it would be a great help to recruit more men and enable them to give better service to the District.

In reference to one question you had earlier, response to emergencies, back in April when the disturbances first began, about midnight, I called my five sergeants and within one hour I had 25 of my 35 enlisted men at the precinct.

The response was excellent.

Mr. WHITENER. What do most of the men associated with you do in private employment?

Lt. JANI. Tremendous variety. We have TV executive, several government employees.

Mr. WHITENER. What percentage would you estimate would be government employees?

Lt. JANI. Perhaps at least 20 percent are Federal or District Government employees.

Mr. WHITENER. Do you have any idea about whether their pay level would normally exceed the $8000 a year?

Lt. JANI. Yes, sir, I know several who greatly exceed that.

Mr. WHITENER. How about you, Lieutenant Fletcher, and your group?

Lt. FLETCHER. Over in the 14th Precinct average salary would be slightly below or right at it.

Mr. WHITENER. So there again we would not be talking about much money if we gave them a choice.

Mr. MOYER. Not at all.

Lt. JANI. I am talking about two in particular that I know of. The average salary of the whole corps would not be too much greater because there are several young fellows just 21 or 22 years old.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Moyer, if you are going to talk to the Budget Bureau, we are not talking about a whole lot of money and expense to the Government if we gave this option.

I would like you and Mr. Murphy if you want too to give some thought to this idea of Mr. Fraser.

Chief LAYTON. It strikes me that this is an appropriate area for serious consideration.

Fortunately in our experience so far, where we largely use the reserve corps in on-the-job training, we have not had a large number of injuries but it could happen.

It would seem to me that the proposition which has been voiced here in this regard is very appropriate for further consideration.

In the event of a Government employee particularly who is at a higher level of pay, and he becomes disabled because of police duty, it would seem to me that he should be entitled to the higher rate of compensation.

Mr. MURPHY. I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I think in all fairness any citizen who donates his time and who takes the risks involved should be fairly treated if he is injured. If his Federal salary is higher than $8000 a year then I feel his compensation—

Mr. WHITENER. 66 and 23 percent of the higher pay?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes.

Mr. WHITENER. Frankly I do not think any of us thought about that until Mr. Fraser raised the point. I doubt seriously whether yo thought of that.

Mr. MOYER. The question may not have come up. I had not originally worked on this draft.

Mr. WHITENER. Lieutenant Fletcher gave us a few thousand hours in free time.

Lieutenant Jani, how many hours did you give last year?

Lt. JANI. I have not calculated my own hours. Lieutenants and sergeants were not eligible for any award so we did not calculate the hours. It was not as high as Lieutenant Fletcher but it was several hundred hours.

Mr. FRASER. It works out to about $4.00 an hour.

Mr. WHITENER. The Government would be getting a bargain. You will not have many injuries. You will have many men who do not work for the District or Federal Government. It would not be very worthwhile for some fellow who has three or four little tots looking for bread and meat every day.

I thank you, Mr. Fraser, for mentioning this.

Is there anything else to be brought up or which you gentlenen would like to say?

(No response.)

Mr. FRASER. Have we had any communication from people who oppose this bill?

Mr. WHITENER. We have never had anybody opposed to it except a District Commissioner at one time who opposed the main features of it. I do not mean to be critical but at the time we took a flat position that we would do nothing about it unless these people had some compensation for injuries in the line of duty.

Mr. STEIGER. For the purpose of the record, this bill is recommended by Mayor Washington, the District of Columbia Crime Commission of 1966, former Commissioner Tobriner, and Mr. Malachy Harney. the District Consultant on Police Matters.

This has had the endorsement of all these people.

Mr. WHITENER. We certainly thank you, gentlemen, for being here. We will now conclude our hearings and at the first opportunity we will try to have an executive session.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m. the hearing concluded.)

We will include in the record a letter to Chairman McMillan and other information furnished by Chief Layton with regard to separations from the force, and other letters, as well as additional material to be furnished the Committee.

(The documents referred to follow :)

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN.

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Washington, May 16.1968.

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCMILLAN : I am writing with reference to proposed Bill HR 16420, which would provide statutory authority for the operation of a Police Reserve Corps and provide for compensation for work injuries sustained by members of the Corps. As you are aware, this measure was introduced by Congressman Sam Steiger and nine other members of your Committee.

This Bill would give statutory authority for the operation of the Reserve Corps which now numbers approximately seven hundred members. It also would provide statutory authority for training, suspension and dismissal of Reserve Officers, and controlling the possession, carrying, and use by Reserve Officers of weapons while serving in limited law enforcement duties.

This legislation, in my view, would be of assistance to the Metropolitan Police Department in our overall law enforcement efforts and I therefore recommend the favorable consideration of this Bill by your Committee.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN B. LAYTON,

Chief of Police.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
July 10, 1968.

Mr. JAMES T. CLARK,

Clerk, House District Committee,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CLARK: Pursuant to your request by telephone, made to Lieutenant William F. Sturgeon, Jr., Personnel Division, on July 9, 1968, the attached information relative to the number of separations and the number of appointments insofar as the Metropolitan Police Force is concerned for the Fiscal Year 1968, is forwarded.

You also requested information regarding our Police Cadet Program. The Police Cadet Program was initiated in March of 1965. This Program is for young men from seventeen and a half to twenty-one years of age. Upon reaching twentyone years of age, they are sworn in as Police Officers. In March of 1965, the Department was authorized twenty-five Police Cadets. In November of 1966, the Department was authorized thirty-five; and in November of 1967, an additional twenty-five. This brings our present authorized strength to one hundred and six. At the present time, we have one hundred Police Cadets in operation; six on Military Leave; and nineteen have been appointed as Metropolitan Police Officers. Trusting this information will be helpful to you, I am,

Sincerely yours,

JOHN B. LAYTON,

Chief of Police.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

Note: The total authorized strength during the above period (fiscal year 1968) was 3,100.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, July 22, 1968.

Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4,

Committee on the District of Columbia,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WHITENER: On July 11, 1968, during the hearing before your Subcommittee on H.R. 16420 and H.R. 17502, identical bills "To authorize the Commissioner of the District of Columbia to utilize volunteers for active police duty". you asked Assistant Corporation Counsel Thomas F. Moyer to submit certain information for the record concerning these volunteer police.

Initially, you asked for some assurance of the intent of the Government of the District of Columbia that these volunteer policemen would have all the authority of a regular policeman. We note that on page 2 of the bill, lines 5 through 18 provide, in pertinent part, as follows:

"... Reserve officers shall have such of the powers, and perform such of the duties of regular officers and members of the Metropolitan Police force of the District, as the Commissioner may vest in and impose upon them. Reserve officers shall serve without compensation, but otherwise shall be considered employees of the government of the District of Columbia and members of the Metropolitan Police force for all purposes and under all provisions of law except those relating to retirement, insurance, health benefits, veterans' preference. or any other law under which benefits are made available only to compensated employees of such government, unless otherwise provided in this Act or in regulations adopted pursuant to this Act. . . .”

This language comports with the intent of the District that, when the reserve police are performing functions assigned to them, they shall have all of the authority of a regular policeman. The District contemplates that, normally, reserve police will be under the supervision of more experienced regular police. You also asked what compensation for work injuries would be available to reserve policemen pursuant to subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, as provided by the bills. These work injuries compensation provisions are available to Federal and District employees generally and are administered by the Department of Labor. An employee injured in the performance of his duties is entitled to 66% percent of his pay while disabled. If he has dependents he is entitled to 75 percent of his pay, subject to the limitation of 75 percent of the monthly pay of the maximum rate of basic pay for GS-15 (presently $2,143 per month, 75 percent of which would be $1,607.25).

In case of death of a District or Federal employee in performance of duty leaving only a widow, such widow would be entitled to an annuity of 45 percent of such employee's pay. If there were children, the widow would receive 40 percent and each child would receive 15 percent, for a total maximum percentage of 75 percent. Alternative provisions are made for other dependent relatives of the deceased employee.

Chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, further provides for medical services for disabled government employees (section 8103), vocational rehabilitation (section 8104), and lump sum compensation for various permanent disabilities (section 8107).

Section 8134 provides for payment of funeral expenses by the government not exceeding $800, if death results from an injury sustained in the performance of duty.

You also stated that the Subcommittee might consider, in the case of a police reserve officer who is a District or Federal employee with a salary higher than that of a police private, that such other salary should be considered as the basis for determinining work injury compensation, when such person is injured while serving as a reserve policeman. If the Subcommittee determines to consider such a provision, this object can be accomplished by striking the period in line 22 on page 3 of the bills and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

", except that benefits for a reserve officer who is an employee of the United States or the District of Columbia shall be computed on the basis of his salary in such employment if such computation results in higher benefits for such reserve officer or his dependent."

The Government of the District of Columbia reiterates its recommendation that this very desirable legislation be enacted. Sincerely yours,

The Honorable WALTER WASHINGTON,
Commissioner, District of Columbia,
District Building, Washington, D.C. 20004

DEAR MR. WASHINGTON: In my rush to leave Washington the day after the June meeting of the Federation of Citizens Associations, I was unable to get out all letters concerning actions taken at that meeting on June 6. I do not have copies of the formal resolutions with me nor any stationery, so this will have to suffice and I shall merely give you the gist of these actions.

1. The Federation voted to support the Federation of Civic Associations in its request for a curfew for teenagers and hopes that you will seek legislation to that end. Something has to be done to curb the wave of violence that now makes it unsafe for citizens of the District of Columbia to be on its street after dark and that manifests itself in other ways-arson, rock throwing at buses, robbery of bus and taxi drivers, etc.

2. The Federation also endorsed pending legislation which would authorize uniforms and, in case of injury incurred while on duty, compensation for volunteers to assist the District's Metropolitan Police Department. I have forgotten the number of the Bill which was considered by our Police and Fire Committee but it was supported unanimously.

The Federation voted to request that every effort be made to have the Federal rather than the District pay for costs resulting from the so-called "Poor People's Campaign," as this certainly was not something sponsored by or the responsibility of citizens of the District of Columbia and, in fact, it caused considerable loss of tourist trade and therefore revenue which would otherwise have accrued for the District.

We hope that you will find your views compatible with those of the Federation and that you will do all in your power to implement these actions of the Federation.

Very sincerely yours,

GEORGE W. BRADY, President 3023 44th Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20016

cc: Mr. Hechinger

Senator Bible

Representative McMillan

Mabel E. Morris,

Mrs. EDWARD B. MORRIS, Secretary.